Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was the first 400mph fighter.
.... It had a much lower bomb carrying capability. And of course, one hit anywhere in the cooling system and it wasn't likely to make it home.
...
None of these specs had been achieved previously, and the only engine available in '38 when Kelsey wrote the spec was the V-1710, and both he and Johnson recognized that two engines would be required to do the job. I'm curious-just when did the R-2800 become available, and when/how did the turbocharger development with it take place? I'm assuming it was a little behind the 1710, but honestly don't know. One point of interest-according to Kelsey, the '38 was designed as a versatile fighter right from the start, not as an "interceptor". He created the interceptor name/classification as a way to get around the AAC limits and restrictions of the day.
Turbocharging offered a number of advantages over mechanical supercharging (along with disadvantages). Mechanical superchargers take a lot of power to drive-I believe I've seen around 250hp discussed for the Merlin (correct me if I'm way off base-could well be). Lets assume for the sake of argument that that is true-for a net output of 1400hp, you need the engine to produce 1650 (to provide the power to drive the SC). Which means the engine is stressed more. The intake charge has to be compressed that much more, heating the charge more. The structure of the engine needs to be built around that. And of course you burn the fuel of a 1650hp motor, not a 1400hp one. The turbo, being powered from "waste" energy, doesn't have those issues-your 1400hp engine puts out 1400hp. Fuel economy is theoretically better. Mechanical SCs were typically gear driven with a transmission to shift gears (at least in 2-speed ones). That gave peak power at the point where you shifted into the next higher gear-with power dropping off as altitude increased (and boost of the fixed-speed SC decreased). Turbos were infinitely variable in terms of compressor output. (poorly worded, let me explain). The turbocharger's boost was set by a wastegate, which adjusted the exhaust "energy" driving the turbine blade. Fully closing the wastegate drove all exhaust gas through the turbo, opening it bypassed it. Boost was regulated by the degree to which the waste gate was opened. In theory at least, peak power could be maintained from sea level up to the maximum altitude where the turbo could still produce rated boost (assuming no other limitations, such as intercooling capacity).
IDK if superchargers are good or not, but this Japanese Ki-87 one looks impressive.If most superchargers weren't that good -- why did the USN go for two-stage and the USAAC just go for turbos
Well, it looks better than the one on the XP-39.IDK if superchargers are good or not, but this Japanese Ki-87 one looks impressive.
View attachment 564629
They developed their auxiliary supercharger that way because they tried and failed at least three times to get the government to fund the development of an integral, 2-stage supercharger and were contractually bound to deliver V-1710 engines per an approved drawing set. Since they were denied funding for that development, they developed a bolt-on supercharger that worked but was less than what might have been developed had the effort been approved and funded. Allison did not have deep pockets and even General Motors was reluctant to develop a major improvement on their own money that was repeatedly denied funding by the government. They were pretty sure, and I'd have to agree with them, that any such development would be eagerly used by the government, but no payment for development would be forthcoming.
Sure looks like a turbo-, not a super- charger to me!IDK if superchargers are good or not, but this Japanese Ki-87 one looks impressive.
Yes, that's why I was posting a reply to Zipper's note on turbos. But I could've been clearer, clearly.Sure looks like a turbo-, not a super- charger to me!
Also note that the US was just introducing 100/100 fuel (not 100/130) in the very late 1930s and 1940..
Regarding the FW190 engine problems, can you elaborate? I have read many times about that engine running rough from captured 190 pilots, allied test pilots flying captured 190s and videos of 190s. This rough operation supposedly destroyed any "feel" coming up through the stick making normal stall warnings impossible to detect. Were these the engine problems you were alluding to, or were there more? Thanks.Regarding post #25, Wuzak.
Allison did not develop the external auxiliary supercharger because they preferred their engines to be as modular as possible.
They developed their auxiliary supercharger that way because they tried and failed at least three times to get the government to fund the development of an integral, 2-stage supercharger and were contractually bound to deliver V-1710 engines per an approved drawing set. Since they were denied funding for that development, they developed a bolt-on supercharger that worked but was less than what might have been developed had the effort been approved and funded. Allison did not have deep pockets and even General Motors was reluctant to develop a major improvement on their own money that was repeatedly denied funding by the government. They were pretty sure, and I'd have to agree with them, that any such development would be eagerly used by the government, but no payment for development would be forthcoming.
The government didn't fund the Northrop F-20 either and didn't support it when Northrop tried to market it. In the end, that VERY promising aircraft's full development effort was funded by Northrop. Considering that event, I doubt very seriously that any current US warplane maker will EVER develop a warplane on their own, without at least some overt government interest. The French firm Dassault-Breguet learned all about that one when they developed the Super Mirage 4000 on company funds and nobody bought it. They flew it for years at airshows, and everyone was impressed, but not enough to be the first customer.
As an added note to post #61, the P-38 WAS the first 400 mph fighter in service. The XP-38 went over 400 mph in 1939. The F4U Corsair was the first single-engine, 400 mph fighter in development. The XF4U-1 went over 400 mph on 1 Oct 1940 at an average ground speed of 405 miles per hour (652 km/h) from Stratford to Hartford in the U.S.A. . The Fw 190A didn't see service until March 1941. They could just hit 400 mph when they weren't having engine problems. I believe the first Spitfire to exceed 400 mph in level flight was the LF Mk. IX, which did that in 1942. The Typhoons were still having structural failures in 1941 and were not reliable 400 mph aircraft. In fact, one broke up on a speed test and killed pilot Phillip Lucan in August 1942, which resulted in adding structural plates to the tail to prevent failure at high speed. Perhaps there is one or more that I am missing?
I am only talking about aircraft that went into military service, not prototypes or other "special" aircraft. We all know the Supermarine S-6 could hit over 400 mph. but it was hardly able to attack anything. It was sometimes hard pressed to survive a landing in a smooth harbor, much less kill anything. But id DID pave the way for the Spitfire that we all know and love.
Regarding the FW190 engine problems, can you elaborate? I have read many times about that engine running rough from captured 190 pilots, allied test pilots flying captured 190s and videos of 190s. This rough operation supposedly destroyed any "feel" coming up through the stick making normal stall warnings impossible to detect. Were these the engine problems you were alluding to, or were there more? Thanks.
We can take a look on the cross-section and cutaways of the F6F, in order to compare. Where the P-47 have had turbocharger and intercooler, the F6F have had basically nothing (bar radio and wires/bars for control of empenage). The F6F also featured long 'beard', needed for ram air intake, intercoolers and oil cooler. Add the thick belly, too, while the wings were of greater area by 11%.
On the other hand, the P-47 carried more fuel by a large margin (even before we facture in the P-47N), and more firepower.